...And another Reasoned Case Against Impeachment

[GoldenBoy89]

It wasn't about what name the parents picked it was the joke that was made about it....attempting to equate Barron with a royal title.....Maybe you missed that poor attempt at humor?

The joke was about the president, not his son. If you watch the hearings without the right wing spin you’d see her comment was about President Trump. And it wasn’t even a joke at his expense. It was a comment that despite the president giving his kids names resembling titles of nobility, he isn’t a monarch. A point I don’t think anyone here even wants to disagree with.

Was it ill-advised? Unnecessary? In poor taste? Yes, all of those things but the one thing it wasn’t was an insult to Barron. That is his given name after all.

 

[redleghunter]

It wasn't about what name the parents picked it was the joke that was made about it....attempting to equate Barron with a royal title.....Maybe you missed that poor attempt at humor?

It was a rehearsed punch line bringing in a minor child's name to the proceedings. It was rehearsed as she smiled and leaned back in her chair pausing knowing she would get laughs from one side of the room. She half apologized but accomplished her mission. The GOP House members spent valuable questioning time rebuking her for dragging in a kid's name to the proceedings.

If anything, I am glad all three of the partisan lawyers got to speak. It is apparent they had pent up anger and hate which needed some release and the House Democrats gave them some therapeutic relief. Hopefully they actually feel better now.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It was a rehearsed punch line bringing in a minor child's name to the proceedings. It was rehearsed as she smiled and leaned back in her chair pausing knowing she would get laughs from one side of the room. She half apologized but accomplished her mission. The GOP House members spent valuable questioning time rebuking her for dragging in a kid's name to the proceedings.

Strange how just about everyone agrees she should not have said it.

If anything, I am glad all three of the partisan lawyers got to speak. It is apparent they had pent up anger and hate which needed some release and the House Democrats gave them some therapeutic relief. Hopefully they actually feel better now.

I was watching the hearing while working so I may have missed it but what, besides Karlan’s quip about Trump thinking himself a monarch, what other times did the witnesses show any partisan bias in their testimony? I haven’t heard of any.

 

[wing2000]

I don't think I was clear in my last post. The partisan language used by the 3 lawyers called by Nadler have been verbally critical of President Trump outside the halls of Congress. They just could not help themselves yesterday showing it in front of the American people. When lawyers are applying the law they must be sterile and not partisan hacks.

Let's review the specific language - citations?

Also, Turley was not in agreement over how Congress was handling "obstruction" with Trump.

I didn't say he was. I said he agreed Ukraine was was worthy of an impeachment investigation.

He said the President has every Constitutional right as any American does to appeal subpoenas for executive privilege to the federal courts even up to SCOTUS. Nancy Pelosi today said that she would not be a part of what she called executive obstruction. Turley made the point yesterday that Congress not recognizing the President's legal rights to appeal in the courts is actually the abuse of power they claim against Trump. He made it quite clear there are three branches to our government and Congress does not get to define obstruction any way they think it should be.

In Turley's perfect world: Pelosi would go to the courts asking for a decision to force relevant witnesses such as Guiliani, Mulvaney, Bolton to testify under oath. No doubt she would welcome that approach too were it not for the reality of the situation.

The reality is, Trump would milk the legal process for the next year.

And in the meantime, we have a President who continues to act without any constraint on his political activities. After all, he has a party behind him that will bless anything he does, while ignoring the rest of the government. It's a sad time in the history of the Republican party..

IMO, the founders included the Impeachment clause for this very scenario: A President who puts his own political interest above that of the Constitution and the country.

 

[wing2000]

It is when they cannot provide evidence of it.

Nope, they want evidence....something that is sorely lacking.

This is no longer about an inquiry. Pelosi wants articles of impeachment written and Turley strongly rebutted the democrats claim on sufficient evidence to proceed.

Yes, let's just pretend all the evidence and testimony from expert witnesses to date does not exist.

 

[civilwarbuff]

In the current case, the record is facially insufficient.Theproblem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge.This alone sets a dangerous precedent.A House in the future could avoid countervailing evidence by simply relying on tailored records with testimony from people who offer damning presumptions or speculation. It is not enough to simply shrug and say this is “close enough for jazz” in an impeachment. The expectation, as shown by dozens of failed English impeachments, was that the lower house must offer a complete and compelling record.That is not to say that the final record must have a confession or incriminating statement from the accused. Rather, it was meant to be a complete record of the key witnesses that establishes the full range of material evidence. Only then could the body reach a conclusion on the true weight of the evidence—a conclusion that carries sufficient legitimacy with the public to justify the remedy of removal.
Jonathan Turley's statement pg 12
Statement link here:
Prof. Jonathan Turley: "legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous"

 

[essentialsaltes]

In the current case, the record is facially insufficient.Theproblem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge.
Statement link here:
Prof. Jonathan Turley: "legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous"

Yes, we've already discussed Turley's false statement in the other thread.

Mulvaney, the acting White House Chief of Staff and technically still the director of the Office of Management and Budget, can answer one of the central questions of the inquiry: Why, exactly, did the White House freeze nearly $400 million in badly needed aid to Ukraine? But he is refusing to testify, and the House may not be able to force him to do so before the unofficial clock runs out on the inquiry. There’s no set time limit, but Democrats are understandably reluctant to let the process drag on deep into the election year.

The House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Mulvaney to testify Friday before the impeachment inquiry that three House committees are conducting. Mulvaney ignored the subpoena

 

[stevil]

Democrats' Star Impeachment "Witness" Mocks 13-year-old Barron Trump in Hearings UPDATE/S: FLOTUS Responds
Jason Howerton on Twitter


Great witness democrats....really supports your impeachment case.

Mock - make a replica or imitation of something.

Mocking is what Trump does with regards to Page and Strzok, as well as mocking a disabled person

This witness didn't mock Barren at all.
She just used a pun on his name, that was presumably given to him by his father.
"The president can name his son Barren but he can't make him a Barron."
This is not mocking at all.

 

[Albion]

"The president can name his son Barren but he can't make him a Barron."
This is not mocking at all.

Maybe not, but what she said was.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Maybe not, but what she said was.

That’s exactly what she said. It was not mocking Barron. It was making a point about the President not being a monarch. You can disagree with how she made the point. I’m right there with you on that, but surely, you don’t disagree that the president is not a monarch, regardless of what he names his kids. That’s the point she was making.

 

[stevil]

Maybe not, but what she said was.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Yes, we've already discussed Turley's false statement in the other thread.

Then why haven't the dems objected to it?


Mulvaney, the acting White House Chief of Staff and technically still the director of the Office of Management and Budget, can answer one of the central questions of the inquiry: Why, exactly, did the White House freeze nearly $400 million in badly needed aid to Ukraine? But he is refusing to testify, and the House may not be able to force him to do so before the unofficial clock runs out on the inquiry. There’s no set time limit, but Democrats are understandably reluctant to let the process drag on deep into the election year.

The House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Mulvaney to testify Friday before the impeachment inquiry that three House committees are conducting. Mulvaney ignored the subpoena[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm...ABC claims: After repeated White House denials – including from President Donald Trump himself -- that there was a quid pro quo in the Ukraine affair, White House Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney on Thursday admitted there was one, saying Trump had ordered him to withhold military aid in part to pressure Ukraine to launch an investigation of Democrats.

Mulvaney's statement that ABC quotes: “President Trump is not a big fan of foreign aid. Never has been. Still isn’t. Doesn’t like spending money overseas, especially when it's poorly spent, and that is exactly what drove this decision,” Mulvaney told ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl during a White House briefing. “I've been in the office a couple of times with him, talking about this, and he said, ‘Look, Mick, this is a corrupt place. Everybody knows it's a corrupt place.’”

So.....where does he admit to a quid pro quo? Please point it out to me cuz I don't see it.

In fact later Mulvaney says:
After hours of backlash, Mulvaney attempted to clarify his comments in a statement the White House released shortly afterward.

“Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump. Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election," Mulvaney noted. "The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server. The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption."

Mulvaney admits quid pro quo, says military aid withheld to get Ukraine to probe Democrats

 

[stevil]

“Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump. Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election," Mulvaney noted. "The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server. The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption."

But then...

 

[civilwarbuff]

See #152

 

[essentialsaltes]

Then why haven't the dems objected to it?

Of course they object, but they haven't sued, because there's no way a suit would be resolved before the 2020 election. As came up in the testimony yesterday, Congress subpoenaed documents in 2011 related to the the Fast and Furious Case. AG Eric Holder declined to produce them. Congress sued in 2012. The district court declined to throw it out in 2013. They were still filing documents in 2015. Ultimately, the case was resolved, in MAY OF THIS YEAR. 7 years.

Mulvaney, the acting White House Chief of Staff and technically still the director of the Office of Management and Budget, can answer one of the central questions of the inquiry: Why, exactly, did the White House freeze nearly $400 million in badly needed aid to Ukraine? But he is refusing to testify,

There, there's the question he can answer. The OMB halted the funds, he's the boss of the OMB. There was either a legitimate reason to halt the funds or an illegitimate one. He knows what the reason was.

So.....where does he admit to a quid pro quo? Please point it out to me cuz I don't see it.

Nobody cares. The question above is one Mulvaney can answer.

He is a "key witness who would have direct knowledge" in Turley's phrase. Dems have subpoenaed him, but Trump has blocked his testimony.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Nobody cares. The question above is one Mulvaney can answer.

I care. Mulvaney said no quid pro quo. Mulvaney never admitted to a quid pro quo. If you disagree please show me where he admitted to such....

 

[wing2000]

 

[Hank77]

You obviously did not view the other video which clearly exposes her prejudicial viewpoint of Trump. I personally glad she was invited as it shows the dems willingness to use their partisan hatred in something as grave as impeachment attempts.

How many times has Jonathan Turley been a guest on FoxNews? He's been pretty much a regular over the last couple of years. He's also a friend and loyalist of AG Barr.

 

[Sparagmos]

Oh, that's right. The credibility of the witness ought not count for anything when we're talking about an impeachment of the president.

How exactly does her statement about Barron affect her credibility as a constitutional expert, or as a witness in general?

 

[rjs330]

Sorry, you're not on the edge. Your "democracy" is done. The U.S.' fate is decided by which country has the best hackers.

If Trump is impeached, he will be replaced by another Republican. So I really don't see what the whole "partisan" thing is all about.

It's about getting rid of Trump because they don't think they can beat him. It's not going to end here. Trump will most likely not be convicted in the Senate. So the Dems will try and find something else. This is just a part of the plan. If they get rid of Trump they have a better chance of winning next fall.